Most people believe in quality of life over quantity, so with the availability of euthanasia people can dictate their own lives and have the dignity of a chosen death. To deny an individual the dignity of a chosen death, he is forced against his will to live the rest of his life in agony and discomfort. Diaconescu (2012) believes that the law should not limit individuals' choice to preserve their quality of life in their own way. If an individual feels that dignity is unattainable due to the progression of a terminal illness, assisted dying should be a legitimate option. Keown (2002) comments that the main obstacle to the authorization of euthanasia proved to be the objection that, even if they were morally acceptable in some 'difficult cases', voluntary euthanasia and doctor-assisted suicide could not be effectively controlled; society would slide down a “slippery slope” towards killing patients who did not make a free and informed request or for whom palliative care would offer an alternative. But this would not be the case as the process for choosing euthanasia is a broad and thorough examination of the patient. According to Sikora and Lewins (2007) the quality of life of terminally ill patients can be seriously damaged by physical conditions such as incontinence, nausea and vomiting,